Anna, I wanted to write positively to your posts, procrastinated it though and others took it up. Now I want to reflect to one word, I use differently: *---- MODEL ----* There are several 'models', the mathematical (or simple physical) metaphor of a different subject is one, not to mention the pretty women in fashion-shows. I use *model* in the sense of a reductionist cut from the totality aspect for a topical view: the epitom of which is Occams razor. Observing (studying) a topic within chosen boundaries - limitations of our selection by our interest. Of course Bruno's all encompassing arithmetic system can cover for this, too, but I am not for restricting our discussions to the limitations of the present human mind's potential (even if only in an allowance for what we cannot comprehend or imagine). Beyond Brent's "yam-y" extension. What we don't know or understand or even find possible is not impossible. It is part of 'everything'.
I chose to be vague and scientifically agnostic. Have fun in science John Mikes ** On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > A. Wolf wrote: > >> So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)... > >> would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time > value. > >> > > > > Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting > > the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience? > > > > Anna > > > "Capable of supporting" implies some physical laws that connect an > environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the > occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list > (like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we > consider universes with different rules of inference? Are universes > considered contradictory, and hence non-existent, if you can prove X and > not-X for some X, or only if you can prove Y for all Y? > > You see, that's what I like about Bruno's scheme, he assumes a definite > mathematical structure (arithmetic) and proposes that everything comes > out of it. I think there is still problem avoiding wonderland, but in > Tegmark's broader approach the problem is much bigger and all the work > has to be done by some anthropic principle (which in it's full > generality might be called "the Popeye" principle - "I yam what I > yam."). Once you start with all non-contradictory mathematics, you > might as well let in the contradictory ones too. The Popeye principle > can eliminate them as well. > > Brent > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
